fa Bond durability of self-adhesive composite cements to dentine ترمیمی Cosmetic and Restorative Dentistry پژوهشي Research <p> <strong>Objectives</strong></p><p>  Clinically, the most easy-to-use composite cements are the so-called self-adhesive composite cements (SAC's). Hardly any data is however today available on the long-term bonding effectiveness of such luting composites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond durability of different composite cements used to lute feldspathic ceramic blocks onto dentine. </p><p> <strong>Methods</strong> </p><p> Four SAC's (Clearfil SA Cement, Kuraray G-CEM, GC SmartCem2, Dentsply Unicem 3M ESPE), one ‘self-etch’ (Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray) and one ‘etch-and-rinse’ (Variolink ll, Ivoclar-Vivadent) multi-step composite cement were used to lute feldspathic ceramic blocks (Vita Mark II, Vita) onto dentine surfaces. Teeth were distributed randomly in 24 experimental groups according to two different surface-preparation techniques (‘SMEAR-COVERED’ versus ‘SMEAR-FREE’) and storage conditions (‘IMMEDIATE’ versus ‘AGED’). Failure patterns were evaluated with a stereomicroscope, and afterwards imaged using Feg-SEM. Two additional specimens were processed for cement-dentine interfacial analysis using TEM. </p><p> <strong>Results</strong></p><p>  A linear mixed effects statistical model revealed significant differences for the variables ‘composite cement’, ‘surface preparation’ and ‘ageing’. All self-adhesive composite cements, except Unicem (3M ESPE), did bond less favourably to fractured dentine. TEM revealed an ultra-structurally different interaction of the composite cements with ‘SMEAR-COVERED’ and ‘SMEAR-FREE’ dentine. </p><p> <strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>  All SAC's suffered most when luted to ‘SMEAR-FREE’ (fractured) dentine, fortunately of no clinical relevance and most likely due to enhanced water sorption through the open tubules. When luted to ‘SMEAR-COVERED’ dentine, all SACs appeared equally effective and durable as the ‘etch-and-rinse’ and ‘self-etch’ multi-step composite cements. Solely the SAC SmartCem2 (Dentsply) appeared clearly less favourable and consistent. </p><hr><p></p><p> <strong>Source: </strong>Journal of Dentistry</p><p> <a href="http://www.jodjournal.com/article/S0300-5712(13)00181-4/abstract" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">Full Text</font></a></p> Self-adhesive, Cement, Composite, Ageing, Smear, Dentine, TEM 0 0 http://idai.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-32-2206&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Yuji Suyama 100319475328460010381 100319475328460010381 No KU Leuven – BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Science, KU Leuven (University of Leuven) & Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium Jan de Munck 100319475328460010382 100319475328460010382 No KU Leuven – BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Science, KU Leuven (University of Leuven) & Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium Marcio Vivan Cardoso 100319475328460010383 100319475328460010383 No KU Leuven – BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Science, KU Leuven (University of Leuven) & Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium Toshimoto Yamada 100319475328460010384 100319475328460010384 No Department of Dentistry, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2, Toranomon Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8470, Japan Bart Van Meerbeek 100319475328460010385 100319475328460010385 Yes KU Leuven – BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Science, KU Leuven (University of Leuven) & Dentistry, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium